40 Comments on “Presidential Debates”

Thanks for sending those entertaining lines. But please, watch your language as some little girls might visit this site. What your mates said about me is true. Who are your mates anyway?

Half Moon Bay is certainly a pretty place to surf but it is still 2 hours drive from where I live. When I was still learning to fly in the late 90’s, I flew and landed down there at Half Moon Bay from Hayward Airport with a little Cessna 172 as part of my routine flying route. Half Moon Bay has an uncontrolled airport and you can fly in and out as much as you like.

Well, I am not a surfer freak kind of guy and I don’t have any information you are asking for. You seem too crazy about woman with bikini…? I guess you need to stay away from the beach for a while to refresh your convolution mind from seeing women with bikini….that is the side effect for staying too long at the beach, right? Have you ever seen a monkey with bikini? That might be an alternative for you guys to look at…

I don’t think you can handle Californian girls, even the ones who migrate from Indonesia. They are just too Americanized and Rupiah can’t seem to keep up! Have you ever met one in Lombok? Don’t you guys have a lot of Aussie down there? Is tourism still doing well in Lombok? If you ever come or stranded in California, feel free to reach me. I might have the time to take you guys to Half Moon Bay.

Hi Chris dude – Thanks so much mate for the totally awesome reply! Me and the boys wondered if you had a sense of humour and you more than satisfied our curiosity so to speak. Really sorry about the overuse of bloody and bleedin so much but that just how we speak like all the time dude. Me and the lads meant no harm as we think your totally cool. You can hang with us anytime dude!

First, just to be clear, some of my arguments might resonate with those who advocate maintaining the status quo. But not me. I don’t believe that status quo is the way to go. But I do believe this.

One, radical (slow or fast) changes in Indonesia – as history have shown us over and over – always comes with price, and usually, the minorities are the ones who have to pay (esp. Chinese and Christians). The case of 1965 and 1998 are but only the most obvious. There is a grain of truth in some (not all) areas where a ‘gradual’ approach might be more prudent. I’ll give you one classic example as my research background is in military studies. Democracies, esp. the US, always advocates control over the military and civilian supremacy as the key underpinning factors of any democratic development. Look at what Gus Dur did. He tried too too much to impose such control, guess what happened? Minorities pay as Ambon and Poso flared up, not to mention triggering his own downfall and the ascendancy of conservative officers under Sutarto and Ryamrizard.

Second, I believe that every one, esp. Indonesians, have their own ‘path of struggle’ (jalur perjuangan). This reminds me of the words of the late Nurcholish Madjid. He was once asked, “Cak Nur, our nation’s problems are so multi-faceted and complex and seem entangled in a web of mess. Where do we begin to solve them?” He only replied, “start anywhere you can”. In this regard, just because my take on your approach might sound ‘status quo’ does not mean I too favor the maintenance of such corrupt system or that I’m not doing anything. I just believe that my struggle (perjuangan) is to educate and teach younger generation of Indonesians (which to quote Tan Malaka, is the ‘most holy duty’). This is why I’m working hard to learn properly so I could come back someday and eventually teach those that would chance Indonesia more than I ever could.

That being said, I apologize. When I said, ‘there’s a cultural argument to made here’. I’m not saying that it’s alright for the government to hide things from us because it’s the ‘Indonesian culture’. What I meant was, your approach to problems Chris, although hit the mark, might not be so ‘acceptable’ to most Indonesians who are yet accustomed to the kind of open liberal democracy that you’ve experienced in the US. Thus, when I said ‘culture’, I meant Indonesia’s political culture suggests that we have yet to achieve a particular level of political institutionalization necessary for the kind of ‘debate-everything-in-the-open’ democracy. This is not a judgment call, whether it is bad or good.

Politics is about acceptability Chris, and all I’m saying is that the kind of open challenge that you’re throwing out there might not necessarily be accepted by the general public not because they think you’re wrong, but simply because they think it’s ‘inappropriate.’ (to assign motives to these people as ‘defenders of status quo’ is to fall on your own rejection of assigning motives)

Furthermore, the reason why I suggested that you take a different approach is that I think your ideas are great, and I would hate to see them fall on deaf ears simply because you couldn’t sell it. Unfortunately, for now, the way to sell political ideas cannot be done in a blunt manner.

Regarding your intention to build a political party to articulate you 14-point plan — surprisingly, this is also not new. I’ve met and heard countless student activists, NGOs, celebrities and even at one point,a former gangster godfather, and thousands of politicians, who all stated their ‘true intention’ to build a political party for the betterment of the people.

Sorry to be blunt, but why should you be any different? By this question, I’m not saying that you’re just like those politicians who simply want to enrich themselves. All I’m asking is, if your solution seems to require a new political party just to get them articulated, then I’m sorry Chris, I’m afraid you’re going to be disappointed. We are all so tired of political parties and promises. Hell, we’ve heard the promises of dozens of supposedly ‘new parties’ to bring ‘new hope’ with ‘new plans’ with nothing in return.

This is precisely why I think you need to switch strategy Chris. Indonesia is not America — at least not for now. American-type political strategy will never work for the time being. There are other venues to get your message out there, without necessarily creating the ire of Indonesians like Purba who — albeit in our view might not be intellectually rigorous or simply defending the status quo — could easily reject your ideas simply because you present them in an ‘American’ way of politics.

You may think people like him are out to defend the status quo and shift the blames on others, but as I’m sure you know, in politics, these people are your constituents. What if Purba was one of your constituents in the US?

Again, this is not to say there’s something bad about American democracy as Purba argued, but simply to say, that if politics is about acceptability, then you need to downplay your idealism and change strategy if you want to get your ideas heard.

Please correct me if I’m wrong or that I’ve crossed the line of decent political debate, but after you left for America, what’s the longest time you’ve spent living in Indonesia and being involved in Indonesian politics?

The reason why I’m asking this is not for the same reasons Purba is asking them. I’m simply asking because if I’m going to be one of your future constituents — per your plan to have a political party — I need to know whether you know and have a feel of how politics work in Indonesia, and more importantly, what kind of issues are more urgent than others.

For example, is bureaucratic reform more important than education reform? Or is military reform more necessary than economic reform? How do you intend to solve poverty? If a bloated parliament and bureaucracy is the problem, what then is the solution that does not come with massive unemployment at the public sector? Can we reform the public sector when there is no educated people to take over? How do you propose to protect the Islamic minority sects in the country? How do you propose to make sure that 1965 and 1998 does not happen again in the future? These are questions that I assure you are not new and I’m sure I’m not the first one to ask them.

To be honest, it’s a bit hard to have a nice discussion over email. So I hope that if you’re serious about coming back to Indonesia and form a political party, I’m sure we could meet over coffee in a Jakarta cafe house somewhere.

Anyway, I stand by my argument: it’s nice to see that someone like you still care about Indonesia and it’s people like you that give a tiny ray of hope and optimism in the future.

I have read your reply and thanks for inviting me to hang out with your guys in Lombok. I just came back from 4 days in New York and I still have a little bit jetlag to deal with.

Anyway, I do plan to go to Lombok soon hopefully before the end of the year. I have been in Solo, Jogya and Bali so many times but never got a chance to fly down to Lombok. If there is any particular place that I shall visit in Lombok, please shoot me an email. Where do you guys hang out?

Finally I have the opportunity to respond your last posting. New York and California took about 7 hours flight. Even though it is only 3 hour difference in time zone, it took me a while to get rid of my jetlag. My trip to New York was nice. Meeting old and new friends from 50 different States in the election season was quite a night out. Hanging out with these guys gave me a little time to sleep. By the time the 4 days was over, I was beat.

Anyway, I have read your last posting with full attention. You brought up many good points and posted very excellence questions. I am not going to respond in order but I want to make sure that I respond each point that was raised with clarity. Healthy interchanges are always fruitful.

In a nutshell, our differences lie on this. It boils down to what system of Government Indonesia is going to embrace. This is the underlying argument that I presented. If Indonesia is embracing authoritarian, kingship or dictatorship kind of Government, then let’s play the rule of that game accordingly. But if Indonesia is embracing DEMOCRACY as she has proclaimed to the world since 2004, then Indonesia shall abide by and honor its principles and implement the rule of the game within the framework of democratic government accordingly.

For the time being, let’s now forget my background for being an Indonesian-American who has been exposed deeply by the American Democracy to eliminate any potential suspicion and convoluted mind. Let’s also set aside these easily misunderstood words, such as: American Democracy, Open Liberal Democracy, American-Type Political Strategy, American way of Politic or, Indonesia’s Political Culture. Let’s focus on democracy as democracy that stands alone within its principles and spirit, which is Demo as people and kratia as government. President Lincoln summarized it as: Government of the people, by the people and for the people. And because the people’s interest is the centralized focus in democracy, the power of the government is decentralized and 3 branches of government are established to be co-equal. For that matter, an additional 4th branch of non-government (A Free Media) was also required to play its role to monitor the work of these 3 branches of Government and report their finding to the people. This reflects the spirit of democracy within the framework people’s right to know and to be informed.

Now what is the biggest enemy in democracy? That little nasty animal called “SECRECY”.

If you think about it, this little nasty animal has caused Indonesia to be in a deep debt trap as today. Many deals that were made in the name of Indonesian people with foreign countries were executed in SECRECY. Look at the billions and billions dollar debts with 18 countries within Paris Club, the $80 billion dollar new domestic debts that was generated as a result of following IMF order to shut down 16 banks, the corrupts energy and oil contracts with foreign companies robbing Indonesia’s natural resources for so many years….all of those were done and executed in SECRECY. Is that the Indonesia’s political culture that we need to maintain? No, Sir! We need to kill this little nasty animal, once and for all. How to do it? Do exactly what I do.

That is the reason why I did what I did by drafting those 14 pages open letter challenging the current Indonesia’s Presidential Candidates and Indonesia’s political Party leaders for series of open public debates. Setting aside the so called: American open liberal direct public debate type of Democracy; this approach has nothing to do with me being an Indonesia-American who has been exposed deeply with the American Democracy. It is within the spirit and framework of democracy that secrecy must be abolished. The invitation for series of open public debate to those current Indonesia’s Presidential candidates was just a starting point.

This is also the underlying issue why I decided to form a political party. Unless I have my own political party platform, I will have no leverage to challenge other political party leaders and future Presidential Candidates to address on critical issues facing Indonesia. If I consistently speak up openly and publicly on certain issues on behalf of a political party, they will have no choice but to response those issues. This shall address our main differences and explain why I did what I did.

Will I be any different than those activists, NGO’s, celebrities, a former gangster godfather and thousands of politicians that you have seen? I don’t know and only time will tell. What I can say is this. There is no system in place in Indonesia up to today where ordinary citizens can pick a phone and talk with their representatives to discuss about issues they are facing. Indonesian people have no role in the government affairs after the election is over. The Indonesian people at large have no avenue to hold their representatives accountable for the promises they made during the campaign season. For this reason alone, I understand your disappointment. This is the reason why, it is so easy for the Indonesian politicians to make promises because none will hold them accountable. Secondly, majority Indonesian people are susceptible to rhetoric and empty promises. They don’t even dare to questions them openly and publicly.

If we are able to raise the sense of awareness to these millions and millions ordinary Indonesian people about this massive debt trap and other depressing issues that have entangled Indonesia’s ability to eliminate poverty and fixing the broken infra structures, it is only a matter of time that those millions people will eventually come forward to question their representatives and their future President. Because it is not about us, it is about them. If we can do this alone, it is a self-accomplishment that we shall proud of and treasure for life. This goal can only be accomplished in an open public democracy. By doing this, we can hit many birds with one stone.

1. We can raise the citizen’s level of awareness about the issue. Once they know it, it’s only a matter of time these millions people will confront their representatives to address the issues
2. We can challenge those political party leaders openly and publicly to address the issues
3. We can challenge those future President of Indonesia to address the issues
4. This approach will direct the Indonesia’s politicians to put people’s interest the number #1 priority in their agenda.
5. We can kill SECRECY by increasing level of public awareness on government affairs
6. This approach will establish transparency, check and balance through public oversight
7. This approach speaks loud and clear about what we are fighting for and what we stand for as a political party.

The notion that an open public debate is not Indonesia’s political culture, that this petinggi (pejabat tinggi/government officials) shall not be questioned and challenged his/her ability and knowledge openly and publicly are simply a brain-washed. My respond to this false notion is this. If one does not want to be scrutinized by the public, if one does not want to engage in an open public debate, then do not run for any public office. Any politicians who are keeping government affairs a secret is disservice to the very people he/she represents.

But your points are understood and well taken. Many Indonesian cultures, social and political engagements were injected by then the colonialists and Javanese kingdomship way of government where the people were given no right to question authority. I still remember these little brain-washed Javanese words: “Junjung Tinggi, Mendem Jero”, meaning that if your leaders are making mistakes, do not embarrass them openly and publicly by confronting their mistakes. We need to bury it deep, very deep and none shall know about it. But if our leaders are making improvements and progresses in our society, we need to praise them as high as we possibly can. In that sense, I understand your point and it is well taken. I just chose to reject that notion and it does not work in Democracy. In Democracy, we are thought to question authority not because we do not trust them, but it is our duty to establish public oversight to maintain transparency, check and balance.

Yes, politic is about acceptability but it is more about the issue or idea. The inappropriate mean utilized can be critical if it is contravene or in direct violation of the democratic principle. The mean I am utilizing it is in harmony with democratic principle even though it is in direct collision with the Indonesian culture, especially, the Javanese culture. But that is what revolutionary is all about, breaking the old rotten habit or brain-washed. This is an attempt to minimize or eliminate State SECRECY; the biggest enemy in Democracy. With political maturity and benefits for having open public engagements, this mean will sooner or later be accepted by the majority people of Indonesia because it benefits them and it is about them. It is just a matter of time. This is the underlying cause that I am promoting by doing what I am doing. Will I succeed it or not? That is another issue to worry. For now, this effort shall continue with full force.

I hope this summarizes with clarity why I did what I did and the approach I am taking in this political endeavors. Now let me address the current situation in Indonesia.

As I see it today, the issue in Indonesia is just like a messy knot (or a web of mess) and it is rusted for over 50 years or so. But we don’t have to be confused about it. To untie this messy and rusted knot, we first need to find or identify the end of the string that forms the knot. What is the end of the knot in the messy Democracy in Indonesia?

That is the 3 branches of Government that are not co-equal and do not work as they are supposed to be and coupled this mess with the absence of a free media to play the 4th role branches of Government. This was also the reason why President Wahid (Gus Dur) had trouble firing his own cabinet member and dealing with massive legislative power. For any Indonesia’s civilian President to have a grip of power over military and legislative, Indonesia’s president must be given a VETO right and the power of executive order. There are some other issues that need to be addressed. The key here is that we must make Indonesia’s legislative and executive power to be dispersed and co-equal. They are separated but co-interdependent. We’ll discuss in more details in due course. To untie all those messy knots in Indonesia, those 3 branches of Government must be reformed first. This reform does not come from those 3 branches of Government themselves, the people have to rise up and demand for a change! So, don’t expect anytime soon. It may take many years to come.

With all of these messes, Government of Indonesia is taking an approach to pick and choose in implementing the 11 principles of democracy. Just like being a Muslim who loves to have more than one wife as the benefit of being a Muslim but does not want to fast 30 days as one pillar of Islam; a mandatory act to be called a Muslim. If a Muslim picks and chooses like that, what kind of Muslim that person is?

This is the same thing with Democracy in Indonesia. Having fair and free election alone does not make Indonesia a democratic country. Indonesia shall not emphasize free and fair election but neglecting their citizen from having basic human rights. That is a twisted version of Democracy. That is what I see happening in Indonesia. On top of that, election in Indonesia is more like business trade where candidates are allowed to buy votes. Is that a new democracy ala Indonesia? I have advocated KPU and members of Parliament to immediately introduce a new bill to prohibit such a practice. Don’t make Democracy a piece of merchandize. Democracy is not for sale, it does not benefit people in the long term. But hey, what else that can not be commercialized in Indonesia ya? This old habit needs to be abolished and the way to do it is by introducing a new law to prohibit such a practice and uphold that law to its full extend.

But those are political mess. How about economical mess? That is another story to tell. So, which issue shall be addressed first and which issue is more important than the other? As you posted, is bureaucratic reform more important than education reform? Or is military reform more necessary than economic reform?

I have been asked these questions so many times in my public appearances. It depends to whom you ask the question. If you ask those Indonesia’s 4 star generals, they will respond that reforming military is more important than economic reform with the basis that stability is critical component to economic growth. But if you ask the Coordinating Minister of Economy, he/she will respond that economic reform is much more critical than the military reform with the basis that how can we reform militarily if the country has no money to support the military reformation.

But let me address these questions from CEO or Presidential Candidate stand point. All of those questions are valid. Being CEO of a Company, this person must be able to sort of all those questions out and identify the top 10 depressing issues facing the nation that must be resolved. As of today, certainly economic reform plays a greater and much more critical role than any other reforms. But why pick and chose? We are not buying a car. We can undertake those economic, military, education and political reforms at the same time as long as it is understood what we are doing, why we are doing it and what the goals are.

Poverty can only be addressed when Indonesia is not in a debt trap. As long as Indonesia is in a debt trap, poverty elevation is just empty rhetoric. Who came up with the idea that members of Parliament (MPR/DPR) had to be over 1000, or 900 or 800 or 700? United States of America being 9 times bigger in terms of its territory and 12 times bigger in terms of its GDP has only 535 total members of Congress that includes 100 Senators from 50 States. Indonesia being much smaller country has how many members of Parliament? Aren’t they 700 now? How about the members of regional representatives or DPDR? Aren’t they 123 now? So, total of them are what 823 members? What’s wrong with this picture?

Well, being Representatives of the people working in the Parliament are not the same as being employees at the government offices. Why is it that we are responsible to find them a job if the people want to lay them off? If they don’t care to find job for those millions unemployed Indonesians, why do we; the Indonesian people, care about finding them a job? That’s why the economic sector must be undertaken first to generate massive employment opportunity. To do this, we need to address on how to improve our currency rupiah? That will lead to the economic recovery and massive employment. China and India are two good examples. It’s too long to address here but I hope we will have a chance to discuss this issue in more details.

There are plenty qualified people in Indonesia to undertake public sector. They are too smart for that matter in the wrong way. All what we need a system that will guide, limit and direct their public engagement to a point that their movements are limited but to address the interest of the people at large. That is why I am advocating Indonesian politicians to come up with their own “Brown Act Indonesian Version” to guide, limit and restrict those Indonesia’s public official movements.

If Indonesia implements the 11 principle of democracy, protecting minority sect is not an issue. Don’t you know that minority right and majority rule are part of the 11 principles of Democracy? That is why, I am advocating that Indonesia shall not pick and chose in implementing those 11 principles of Democracy.

1965 and 1998 incidents? The 1965 incident was more of political incident and the 1998 was more of social incident. Both incidents took many lives of innocent people. Military coup can happen anywhere in any country at any given time. One thing that I can recommend is by dispersing the power within the Indonesian arm forces with civilian control over the military, where chain of command is established and dispersed headed by joint of staff. Any public action must be approved by at least three chained commanders, which two of them are joint of staff and the President. That way, there is no single commander that can mobilize their troops to undertake the killing or assassination. If public action is to be taken, at least the Commander in Chief is being well-informed and he is responsible for the result of the action.

There are some options that can be taken to avoid and minimize the 1998 incidents from happening again in the future. In fact, I presented this issue to one of the current Presidential candidates in Indonesia. Riot, rampage, demonstration and civil commotion can happen anywhere in the world at any given time. What missing in Indonesia is the inability of its local authorities (Police and Military Forces) to curb this massive civil movement, especially, when those civil commotion were targeting ordinary houses or buildings. Why? Because they have no incentive or benefits for taking the risk of getting killed or beaten up by these wacko’s and sicko’s, right?

Here are my proposals:

1. 1st measure: We need to introduce a new bill in the parliament about respecting INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, which includes provisions on false arrest, invasion of privacy, battery, assault and trespassing. Individual Sovereignty is in fact the 1st principle of Democracy. The provision will also include the consequences for any police officers and/or local military forces for not taking action against such a violation. Public defender paid by the government shall be established to help limited defendants categorized as very poor people who can not afford to pay the cost of trial.

2. 2nd measure: For highly targeted buildings, properties and individuals, the local police office and local court shall work together to give some individuals a limited permit and time to bear arm or carry weapons for protection. This measure shall be highly limited, strictly monitored and designed for deterrence purpose against those wacko’s and sicko’s from attacking those properties and individuals. A new bill in regard to this matter shall also be introduced in the Parliament.

3. 3rd measure: Sharing the risk between Local Government and Insurance Companies. I was proposing that insurance shall be mandated for these highly targeted properties where the premium be split 60% paid to the local government and 30% paid to the Insurance Company to cover human peril such as: riot, demonstration and other civil commotion. In return, all the damages as a result of any civil commotion, the local government will have to pay 60% of it and the Insurance Company will have to pay 30%. This measure will FORCE the local government with its police and military forces to take action against those wacko’s and sicko’s from destroying properties and killing innocent people. Otherwise, the local government will have to pay 60% cost of the damages and life. This measure will give those local authorities a reason to act. Hopefully, the local government will use some of those 60% premium to train their police and military forces and also to buy the needed equipments used to confront those wacko’s and sicko’s.

These measures will deter and minimize the 1998 incident from happening again. The question now is, who have the interest, the ability and courage to present these measures to the Parliament?

This I hope will give you an idea what we stand for and what we are fighting for as a political party. Only time will tell if we can undertake these heavy tasks.
end.

Your article is well spoken , written inteligently and in well manner. The source and reference also credible and available for me to validate.

It’s time for smart Indonesian to wake up and selecting their president selectively.
I hope the selection process is more selective than selecting a beauty pageant contest. Well, you know the questions being asked for them and what kind of background checked they went trough.

Smart Indonesian should be able to check the president candidate background, protfolio, education and intention as well as being smart in reading and listening things available, not easily being brain washed and emotionaly driven.

I am glad knowing that you’re still hopefull and love Indonesia dearly eventhough you’re not leaving in Indonesia anymore. Not many Indonesian, or even public servants as hopefull as you are. Many of them seeing a glass half empty than seeing glass half full.

To all readers:

What could you offer or do positively in raising the bar for Indonesian presidential candidate ? What is your ideal candidate leader should be ?

The Indonesian Bishops Conference already wrote the essential and the basic and the essence of Indonesia problems in six points. In the context on my commentaries to the core points and the spirits of the letter to the Indonesia presidential election, I wrote your name and DR Sjahrir (passed away 2008). I cited you and Sjahrir basic attitude to the situation that the condition of Indonesia’s critical condition is a fact, to be or not to be situation.

Six years ago Sjahrir gave sign to the worst condition Indonesia wold faces, if there’s no conscience on the critical-crisis with its management at the same time. Now, in the (its seems just as good) figuring political all the crisis condition issues sinking and going down before its own state. But, we hope, HE still show HIS own bless to the nation and state. That is the reason why you still push this debate, Chris.

I saw the core point and the spirit of Indonesian Bishop letter is the fatal leadership of the five years under Mr SBY presidential, when the constitution and the law is run under an invisible power (?). I mean that Mr. President used his ministries or th Vice to implement any critical policies, in ideology, law, economic, etc. and Mr. President will claim the good result as his path, and the unpopular and the foolish is his “helpers” policy.

Just for your consideration: after the death penalty amd the execution of Fabianus Tibo, Dominggus and Marinus on September 22th, 2006, when there were many states sent their protests, He, Mr SBY has no proportional anwer and choice to kick out, one by one – and just some citizens realized this things – all his ministries and other Public Leader who have take their responsibility to the execution, namely: Abdurachman Saleh, Hamid Awaloedin, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, Police National Chief Soetanto, and Bagir Manan. In Tibo cs case, Mr President and his Vice has to take all responsibility.

Shortly to say, Mr SBY and his Vice JK, (JK will be his rival in presidential election) take too many fundamental and essential risk in implementing Constitution (UUD 1945) and Indonesia as a law state (rechtstaat). Ahmadiah followers for other example, cannot get their rights as well as constitution and a law state has to give, when some Fundamentalist Muslim – my honor and appreciation to Mainstream Muslim in Indonesia, destroyed their mosques and their private houses and other assets. Mr President didn’t do anything, even though a statement as Chief State.

My first and fresh comments before this, I used the term “Argumentum ad Populum” to the strangeness and craziness of what democracy, finally agree that, the winner is absolutely wining the quantity, but quality is just come at the same time. The anthropologist Ignas Kleden, accidentally use the term as his title in KOMPAS, wrote his ethical consideration in political and the presidential election. He supported the readers to choose the president who can take all responsibility to his citizens.

Ignas cited Mr Obama and wrote: “Choose the right path, not the easy path (pilihlah jalan yang benar, bukan jalan yang gampang), when Presiden Obama deliver his speech in Kairo, June 4th, 2009.” Then he suggested to the readers: “So we do, better we choose the genuine leader and just not an satisfy president.

(Dear readers, just try to understand my points, if you get trouble in my gramnatical and words and context. I am learning… Mr Chris Komara and You were expert in using English..)